ermmmm

[Rubenandres77]

Originally Posted by imavingalaughaswell

okies maybe this thread was moved to the wrong forum ....

in my first post i mentioned "wood items" ..they are certainly not aircraft or any other kind of vehicle either ...

so lets try again ..
lets say someone has dsigned a storage box to be made from wood with a picture of a horse on it,and made available his design for download for anyone to make out of wood,and im making it from paper/card and putting a picture of a goat on it ...is it still his design or mine?

It really doesn't matter if it is a box, a plan, a song, a book, a card model, a movie, a poem, a painting, or any other thing.

If it it was created/designed/painted/written/drawn/coded/filmed by someone else, it's his/her work
If you modify it in any way, to any given extent, using whatever tools, it's still his/hers.

[imavingalaughaswell]

okies thanx for all the input ..ive now made contact with the designer and am currently in talks about this ....

[mbauer]

Originally Posted by imavingalaughaswell

okies thanx for all the input ..ive now made contact with the designer and am currently in talks about this ....

This is the only way your question can be answered!

Glad you took the time to contact them!

Best regards,
Mike Bauer

[Zathros]

Everything in this forum is made off of other people's work. The argument kind of becomes silly. If I look at a model from Fiddler's Green of a Piper Cub, then look at a 3 way photo of a Piper Cub, then make a model of a Piper Cub, which will look like the Fiddlers Green model, because it is a Piper Cub and guess what, Piper Cubs look like Piper Cubs, I don't own anyone anything, either that, then everyone of this forum owes somebody something and we're all pirates, aarrgh!!

I have not seen anything on this forum or any other that is original in design. There may be something I've missed, but so far, not one thing. Even the building techniques, except until today, when Goldenbear angled some formers, does he have a copyright on that? I doubt it. Though, in his case, his models are of subjects that I do not believe have been done before, but he did not design the original ship. He had to use reference photos.

I think you are better off making your models and not divulging your inspirations. They can be interpreted wrong, and the bottom line is there are no copyright lawyers here and they don't work from free. Save your work, if you feel you need too.

If I release a model and someone has something to say, then too bad, we're talking paper models, and Dansl1 answer is one of the most sensical I've read. Make your model, let someone prove it was a copy, good luck with that. Builders, in the real world and modelers get their inspiration from many places. It's the human experience. Paper models based off of balsa wood models need a lot of work to be made out of paper.

There is a model of the ESKA Ekranoplan you can get, albeit, it is mising a wing, easy to fix. I have completely redesigned that model, was going to release it at another forum till a bunch of know it all offered up the opinions which were wrong anyways. I left that forum because of a lot of people who speak above of their pay grades. I was intending to release it here but now I wonder, should I?

One of the reasons I have not released any models is because of this issue. was going to repaint the ancient Soviet Era model and endured too many opinions about a model produced for free in a country that no longer exists.

I have done a complete redesign in Rhino off of an original line drawing from Russia, and it is a far more of an exact model, also, it's the 2 seat version. The wing has a main spar, just like the original, oh oh, it's a copy. This is ridiculous.

[imavingalaughaswell]

just a quick update ..

sent to designer:-names removed.

hi there ..
i recently downloaded one of your xxxxxxx plans and am in the middle of converting the design so it can be made out of paper and card...
could you please tell me where i stand if i wanted to share the model with others? so that others could if they wanted too build the same thing

thanx
xxxxxxxxx

reply from designer:-

xxxx


Generally speaking you are allowed to use the design for personal use only.
I am not sure if this applies to you, but before I say yes, could you let me know more about what you are doing and what you intend if I agree.


Regards


xxxxxxxxxxx

second e:mail sent:-

ok here goes ...

im using design software to completely rework your design so that it can me made out of paper/card,i then intend to ,with your permission put the work on a website or forum somewhere (not sorted that out yet) so that others can download the work and build thier own,i have no intentions of trying to sell the works,it would be as a free download...

as to how and what it is ..please find attached an image of a cormercially available kit published years ago i think ..mine is somewhat simular,only using your plans as a starting point,see second attached file for sample of one of my pages..

hope this helps

will update as soon as i get another reply...
back i go to the designing ...

[Zathros]

Originally Posted by imavingalaughaswell

just a quick update ..

sent to designer:-names removed.


reply from designer:-


second e:mail sent:-

will update as soon as i get another reply...
back i go to the designing ...

I am in crowded mall and I find 10 bucks and cry out. "Who's $10 dollars is this", most raise their hands. You stated you "were completely reworking his designs", of a "real aircraft"? That could mean anything. I saw Bill X's Corsair and thought after reviewing his take on it, I could do better in another medium. What does that have to do with your work? Unless he designed his own aircraft, a unique design of his own, and I have built at least 25 balsa flying models, their all the same construction technique, different makes of the same plane which were virtually identical, he has no claim. Researching a subject to design a model of it is not stealing someone's work. Just look at all the commercial Papermodels on the same subject, which the slightest differences, which have to do with interpretation. You presumed yourself guilty, which is not the way the law works. I can't see how this fellow has any claims, but now may, as you have given him grounds, justified or not. Anything you do now is "ex post facto", as you have written, maybe unintentionally, that you are deriving your work from his, which may or may not be true, as you also mentioned you are totally re-working it, whatever that means. You would have done well to post an example of what you are intending to do, and maybe still should, to document publicly your intent, so that you may not get sued. You would have been done better just making your model, posting it, because if you did rework it to the extent that it seems you are, it is your model. You just gave the guy the keys too your house.

The expression. "T.M.I"( Too Much Information) comes to mind. Even after reading this thread, the only conclusion I can come too is, do NOT ask anyone on this forum for legal advice.

There is nothing in this forum that I have seen that is an original work of art. It is all derived from real world works. The more accurate, the more alike they must look.

[papersmithforge]

@Zathros: Your interpretation of the word derive is being misused. In the legal sense derived from means you've taken something DIRECTLY from the author's work. Like if you produced plans and traced them and called them your own or if you added a bit here and subtracted a bit there, but substantially it is the same and the work didn't come from your own brain, you used too many steps from someone else's work and thus derived your work from it.

Copyright implicitly protects the EXPRESSION of an idea, not the idea itself. If someone makes a papercraft "widget" someone else can make a papercraft "widget" of the same thing, BUT your construction process should be to look at the thing and come up with how to do it yourself. In other words you were INSPIRED by the model and its idea, but you didn't actually decompose the model to make your own.

In the example of the box with a goat and a horse, he used the same plans but just changed the picture, SO that is copyright infringement. In that case it may even be patent infringement.

If you drew the Batman logo for instance but tweaked it to be somewhat different and called it Vampireman, you could likely be prosecuted for trademark infringement.

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights all cover different things, but copyright does not protect an idea, it protects the expression of said idea. So while it is correct to say that no idea is original the expression of it is.

I'll use an example from my own website. If someone decided to take the reference pics I put up of the models there and make their own piggy bank using a boar, that's perfectly ok, even if the shape and everything resembled my own. However, if they downloaded my file and simply reproduced my shapes but altered the tabs or some other such alteration they would be guilty of copyright infringement. Why? Because my particular ideas for the construction of the boar and its dimensions and interactions are unique, they came SOLELY from my brain. His model could still use tabs and patterns of some sort though, it's not as if I came up with the idea of glued tabs, and tabs wouldn't fall under copyright law, you would need a patent to protect them from being used on any other paper model.

The lines are fine Zathros, but just as you suggest not to take legal counsel from folks here I would say you're taking a somewhat "laissez faire" approach to the counsel you are giving, at least in your earlier post.

Inspiration is not derivation.

Had the original poster simply looked at the constructed balsa model and said, hmm... I could do something like that, he'd be more than ok. However, the moment he downloaded the plans (even though they are made available freely) and decided to work off of them, he ultimately requires the author's permission for that end. The author is giving out the plans to specifically construct a model from balsa. It is for those ends that his plans should be used. Much as a book is purchased for the purposes of being read, not for xeroxing. This "trust" or "social contract" is implicitly understood by most law making bodies. That trust specifically relating to the INTENDED USAGE of a copyrighted work.

[Zathros]

So, you look at the balsa plans of a Piper Cub but say that the worked is not derived but if someone converts the same Piper Cub to a paper model, after downloading the blueprints, making the changes to turn it into a paper model, it is derived. The original person who "did whatever it is you call it" to make his balsa wood model fo the a Piper Cub did not derive the work but the other did. That is ridiculous. Halinsky, GPM, all make models of the same subjects. You argument does not follow. If someone made a piggy bank that looks a like yours you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. You do not have any kind of rights to the shape of a pig, you would have tp prove the intent. This is even silly because like I said, makers of card model manufacturers make models of the same subject with such slight differences that only an expert would know the difference,and usually, that is based on who got it closer to the actual subject. Just how is it that you think experience is gained in the design of anything? It is done by viewing with great scrutiny that which has come before, and trying not to repeat the mistakes. "a somewhat "laissez faire" approach", Hmmm, telling someone he has offered up too much is very good legal advice. Produce your model, if it looks like the subject you are trying to produce, then you have suceeded. If it also looks like the other people's models that have come before, that is inherent in building techniques. If you place the tabs in the logical places, the models will come up very similar. You distinction as to viewing the plans and downloading them are even fuzzier than anything I said. The fact being, the person has seen plans from which he could gather ideas, your assumption of downloading verses, seeing is precisely why "Non Disclosure" forms are used.

Make your model, keep your inspiration to yourself. It can be misinterpreted by others, rightly or wrongly, but none of this has do do with your intent. This question comes up a lot, never endsup with any answer, and cardmodels are published more and moreeeee, covering the same subjects, the card model printers never raise these issues. Piracy is someone copying the exact model, then taking it selling for profit, or not. Just look at what most people do and you will be safe. I will be posting a model very soon.I can't wait for the comments that will come flying, even though mine is based on a blue print.

What did you use to make your models? There is a ton of them on the Pepakura forum that are striking similar. I would not consider you to be a pirate or to have copied any of their work. Just trying to make a point. If it looks like and duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

[Sakrison]

The law, ethical standards, and common courtesy all say that you must give the original designer credit for the work that he did.
Whether you plan to sell your version of his design or give it away, you still need his permission. But all you have to do is give him credit for the original design. You can take credit for adapting it to card modeling.

Why would anyone be reluctant to give credit where credit is due? Put yourself in the designer's shoes. Wouldn't you want credit if someone adapted your original design?

[imavingalaughaswell]

okies still rather cofussed here with all the replies.....


the way this is all coming across contradicts what everybody who designs paper models actualy does???

for example..

if someone designed a paper model of a car,lets say a ford..the way these replies are coming across is that the person needs to get permission from ford motor company before they can design it? ,,well thats rubbish!!

same again if someone wanted to design an aircraft papermodel ..do they also need permission from the aircraft manufacturer?

or maybe im still not getting the point?

i guess i should just forget i asked the question in the first place.....